I think a key component in the comparison is that films are stories, first and foremost. Stories are timeless, so the need to revisit one in the form of a film remake is usually met with cynicism unless the film has something more substantial to offer. Story in games, on the other hand, tends to be secondary. Gameplay is the focus, and gameplay can become outdated as technology improves. It’s a fascinating topic. I’d love to see more videos like this.
I think the reason why people wasn’t a fan of the “the last of us part 1 remake” is because of the remaster which was available on the same platform and the fact that they didn’t add a lot to the game. Which made I seem like a cash grab instead of focusing on a new game.
And they've justified those little changes telling us this is how they wanted to make the original. Like "The version you already own and love isn't exactly how we intended, THIS is the definitive version you must own. It's 70 dollars, please"
@@samuelmachado8330 I wouldn't say this is a fair comparison. The Last of Us II Remastered was essentially a $10 upgrade if you owned the game on PS4, making it the same price as your average AAA PS5 game. It wasn't a totally new $70 game. You would have to pay the same $10 fee to upgrade many games from PS4 to PS5, i.e. if you had bought God of War Ragnarok on PS4 then the PS5 upgrade would be $10 with no additional content. TLOUII actually has the entire No Return mode DLC added, so it has more content than many other PS5 upgrades, but people got really hung up on the term "remastered," which was probably a fault of the marketing team.
The way movies are consumed compared to how games are (traditionally) owned might also contribute. Coming out of the movie theater disappointed is different to buying something you know will have some of the things you loved from the last installment of the game. This may or may not be part of the Call of Duty success.
Yah I don't really agree with the idea that people don't like movie remakes when there's been a ton of extremely well received remakes like IT, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Ocean's 11, 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit, Mission Impossible, The Ring, Clash of the Titans, Planet of the Apes, Dawn of the Dead, The Parent Trap, Freaky Friday, and I could honestly just go on for awhile but I'll just end it off with that people like remakes in general they just don't like BAD remakes.
I think your point is sound, but the problem with those examples is that most people aren’t aware they’re remakes. But then you get something like The Thing’s remake/prequel and it’s Hated to the point of obscurity
You briefly touched on some of the heightened criticism or scrutiny that the Demon’s Souls remake got. I think that’s partially because From Software is one of the developers where the specific details of their work are heavily scrutinized. While the changes in the remake were mostly aesthetic or quality of life stuff, some of those aesthetic changes changed the implications of the story. One example I heard was that the remake added ivy or vines all over the castle of Boletaria. While this is probably an aesthetic improvement, it adds an additional splash of color to an otherwise pretty grey level, it implies that the current disrepair of the castle has been going on for a lot longer than the original.
I hate the remake, I hate that Bolataria's castle went from a towering stronghold that protects the road leading up to the castle, to a further extension of it... it totally ruins the surprise and sense of progression of reaching the town and King's Castle because the phalanx and Tower Knight areas now look regal and decorative too, it doesn't make you feel like you've passed through a fortress to reach a castle it all looks the like it's part of the kings castle now.. I think in videogames, people struggle to distinguish a technical limitation from a artistic decison born of a technical limitation, Fromsoft made delibrate choices and Bluepoint mindless overlooked them as outdated and not impressive enough.
just look at the statue of the old king , in the remake is a normal looking knight , in the original is a wild looking anime warrior , that in fact changes the implications , fromsoftware could have made it like in the remake but they didnt for a reason so the message is lost
Short answer IMO it's because in games there is more to remake due to gameplay therefore there is more that can be redone to make it feel new while keeping the spirit of the original.
I feel like most film remakes are reboots that are meant to be a different product and/or sold to a different audience whereas game remakes are much more likely to be sold as updates of the same product to the people who enjoyed the original. So the factor of realizing you're no longer the audience for something you cared about. DmC: Devil May Cry, for example, is much more in line with the movie remake, preserving the core of the series superficially through combat systems and rough ideas but not keeping true to the characters that fans came to love. Similarly, Disney remakes are largely the same story but they lose the charm and character expression of animation leaving them feeling hollow in comparison (not to mention some of the more drastic changes to specific movies like cutting most of Be Prepared from Lion King or adding qi as a narrative device to Mulan)
I think the reason has to do with how much each medium has progressed over time. Games have clearly developed a crapton in the past couple of decades, which allows older games to be presented in new ways. Movies have stayed much more similar over the same period of time, which is why remakes like the Lion King feel pointless, but remakes of older movies like the upcoming Frankenstein don't feel that jarring. And in books, change has been even more subtle, with remakes only really making sense to modernize and offer a retelling of some millennium old stories like the Illiad or the Bible.
My view is that gaming has typically advanced significantly between remakes and they can do it better, even if only graphically, but often the gameplay is improved. But movies often can't be done better, and if you can't do it better, then no one will care. If the original still holds up as a movie, a remake will fail. There are a few remakes that surpass the original. The Thing, The Fly, Scarface, IT, Dune... But they all succeeded because their work was largely considered an improvement. There are far more remakes that are inferior to the originals. The Little Mermaid, Evil Dead, Psycho, Ocean's 8, The Wicker Man, Aladdin, Total Recall, Charlie’s Angels, The Mummy, The Witches, Dumbo, Robocop, The Karate Kid, Child's Play, The Omen, Beauty and the Beast, Freaky Friday, Death Race, Ghostbusters, Mulan, Robin Hood, The Lion King... The list goes on and on. I dread the remakes of The Princess Bride, The NeverEnding Story, The Breakfast Club, Police Academy, The Goonies, The Lost Boys, Crocodile Dundee, Short Circuit, and Labyrinth... All in various states of remake development, NONE of which I can see surpassing the originals. All of which I hope never happen. And the most disgusting remake is coming out soon... Edward Scissorhands. HOW do you remake THE final movie of THE Vincent Price? HOW do you remake a Tim Burton movie, WITHOUT Tim Burton? I can't see how it will even hold a candle to the original.
I think it is also worth noting that of the positive ones you mentioned, all of them except the Fly were actually new adaptations of earlier books as opposed to straight up remakes
@@sosaysjay Also true. Which is probably part of why their reinterpretations work, whilst others fail. I had hopes for the new The Crow movie, I was thinking if they made it closer to the original, it could work... But it looks awful. Such as waste, especially as Bill Skarsgård looks a lot like the Eric of the original graphic novel, if only the gave him that late 80's goth look.
@@GoodWitchKirby I wouldn’t classify it as a remake. While there are thematic similarities and common motifs, like ancient curses and the exploration of Egyptian tombs, the characters and their dynamics are unique to each film. Many mummy movies share themes and settings, after all. The main connection, aside from the title, is that both feature a mummy named Imhotep, who was a real historical figure.
The main reason that there is a greater level of optimism for game remakes relative to films is that remakes for games tend to have more potential to benefit from technological improvements in visuals, audio and animation, whereas there is much less room for films to benefit from remakes in this way (and film remakes usually butcher the original work). People love to see their favourites brought up to modern visual standards. And on the part of publishers, the increasing trend of game remakes makes good business sense in terms of bringing back dormant IP, providing the framework for professional development of new staff in a more hands on way and actually having something to release in between a fully new entry in a franchise or new IP, especially considering the current socially necessary labour time for modern AAA games being longer.
Technology used in games gets out dated and can feel clunky to modern gamers plus the core of gaming is the interactivity and gameplay. While the core of movies is watching and experiencing a story, and that does not get out dated as easily. Plus, especially with live action movies, alot of the feeling and mood of the movie comes from the actors and actresses performances, and getting a new cast to reshoot a movie isnt as simple as retelling it. It strips it of alot of that original feel and expression
I think one difference is accessibility of old movies vs old games. For example, you can access the original version of The Lion King very easily, as it is accessible via a streaming service, with no additional hardware needed aside from a TV or something to watch it. However, trying to find a PS2 copy of the original Persona 3 is almost impossible nowadays, not to mention requiring obsolete hardware to play it in the first place, making that original game pretty inaccessible in the modern day. When Persona 3 Reload released this year, it made that game very accessible to a new audience. In addition, that original game's mechanics and aspects of it's design and presentation is dated compared to modern games, including later Persona games, like Persona 5 especially.
The good kind of movie remakes (Suspiria, The Thing, A Star is Born and Casino Royale) actually make the most out of the story and setting, changing what's necessary and keeping only the necessary for the plot. Game remakes, even though they're dragged down by some people's disdain of remasters and some bad remakes (Secret of Mana, Goldeneye 007), actually can improve and give new life to the familiar game. RE2 and RE4 Remakes were a breath of fresh air for how they interpret the original game while giving their own spin. Black Mesa also might be my favorite way to experience Half-Life 1. It's also a matter of why you're remaking something. The Oldboy remake was completely pointless since the original is highly regarded as a Masterpiece.
THPS 1+2 was a fantastic remake. Really knew what to take from the older and newer games to make one of the tightest experiences in the series. Plus it looked fantastic without taking away the style of each level. Great presentation and features with potential to become one of the best THPS games. I wish it was given more post launch support though, with content and addressing complaints. Cancelling the 3+4 remake broke my heart.
Fast answer: Because for video games is (usually) an improvement. Updated graphics, more space for new features... in short, if they don't mess up, it's the same game, upgrated for a new generation. ... About movies? They just take something that was maybe just outdated for the "special effects", change everything and most likely use the less ammount of effort possible, BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL PAY ANYWAY TO WATCH IT, BECAUSE THEY USED THE TITLE OF A BELOVED MOVIE.
Your videos make me wish I was more of a gamer, because I really appreciate your perspective and the way you articulate it, and it inspires me to do the same. Take care of yourself!
Haven't watched at the time of commenting, but I don't love remakes of movies or video games. Every single time I would say I prefer a new product over a remake of an old one. I've seen a lot of people calling for a bloodborne remake and I'm just like "why?!" It's a great game that just needs a PC port. Not a whole damn remake. I can understand why some older games get remade so that they can keep the IP fresh and get new people into older franchises that are beloved by their communities, but I really just don't care for them. For movies I also don't care. I'm not interested in remakes at all, of anything. Give me new and original ideas! Take risks! The industry is so risk averse and it is so boring and predictable with so many unnecessary sequels and remakes and it's just lame. Love the videos though, keep it up!
I was kind of hoping that you’d also bring up the idea that some video game remakes like ff7r aren’t remakes in the standard sense but more so an attempt to tell a new story using that concept of remake
While FF7 remake had the hype of a remake before launch, its status as a narrative continuation means it doesn’t really fit the topic fully. There just aren’t enough games that take this End of Evangelion approach for it to take up a big part of the industry’s bandwidth
I grew up with the Jurassic park remakes so I have more nostalgia for them than the original and it’s the same with the sequels cause I was 10 when I watched them so I still despise what Disney Star Wars stands for I have some nostalgia for aspects of the sequels
I think the reason why we don’t see a lot of film remakes is because the old originals often was made on film which can be remastered at higher resolution later, which is the reason why we can get 4k Blu-ray releases of films that where on cassette tapes. The films that are not on film like 3D animations such as Shrek could be more likely to receive remakes as the will age just as “bad” as video games as long as technology is advancing like it has been doing. Video games on the other hand don’t have analog assets that simply can be rescanned to get an uplift in visuals unlike movies on film, as they are digital and are stuck in the resolution they was released in. Another thing to mention is that old games are often stuck on less available consoles which require the developer to port the game to more accessible platforms.
I don't care for video game remakes. I prefer remasters and re-releases. For instance, Demon's Souls is a remake I bought, but only because I've never played the original game on the PS3. I would've bought the original if it was available on the PS5, but sadly, it isn't. Movies get remastered all the time and nobody complains about that either.
I'm very much the same about game remakes as people are about film remakes tbh, both feel cynical to me and in the case of games i find the public demand for them even more cynical
It's reaching the point where people are saying modern games "need" a remake simply because they don't look like they came out in 2024 (they still look and play perfectly fine)
@@JCSA79V yea that's exactly what I mean, which is the kind of mindset that would lead people to think a last of us remake was a good idea, people seem to demand remakes as a way to avoid engaging with the history of gaming, which i strongly disagree with
I feel like game remakes usually focus on recreating the tone and atmosphere of the original. For example, when exploring certain parts of FF7 Remake, you can see how the developers made sure that it would make fans of the original be blasted by nostalgia. The music, the characters and the maps perfectly respect the original. Also some remakes, while they change things, they can also fix some of the original most popular issues. For example, RE4 is often called a great game, but the beginning of the bad phase of the franchise (kind of like Origins paved the way for Odissey to become a full RPG). So RE4 Remake respect most of the original, but changes the tone to be more focused on horror and it's a much darker game than the original Movie remakes often miss the point of the original or loses the atmosphere to the point where the remake feels like a CGI product. Lion King for instance, loses all the charm, colours and facial expressions of the main characters and are replaced by a beautiful CGI that is so realistic that turns into a very different thing. Another example is Aladdin, where the Jafar loses all his charm, his evil song and charisma as a villain, instead he is just an evil dude.
While not as big in the gaming industry it's not entirely accurate to say that the games director isn't seen as important - Kojima is definitely one of the most notable names but there are also names like Cory Barlog, Neil Druckman, Masahiro Sakurai, Shinji Mikami, Ken Levine, It's evident that as Capitalism has grown we associate brands and companies closer to the product rather than the creators. Even with the rapid commercialisation of movies we've slowly stopped paying attention to the directors in favour of "Is this Disney, Is this Pixar, Is this Marvel?". The companies producing these works are valued more than the people and want to be known for it above all else.
It certainly isn’t entirely accurate which is why I brought Kojima up, even if it is rare. Even then however, Barlog was only lead director on two of the many God of War games and he said himself that the decision to pass control onto Eric Williams was part of a tradition of giving multiple voices a chance within the franchise. On a different part of the spectrum you have Amy Hennig who was the creator of the Uncharted trilogy. So many actors and devs have talked about how she revolutionized mocap in gaming and brought her characters to life. When she was replaced by Neil Druckman and Bruce Straley there was a little drama and some unsubstantiated claims online, but for the most part people really didn’t take notice and Uncharted 4 released with minimal controversy. Even Shinji Mikami exists as a popular figure and is associated with quality, but I’d be hard pressed to say Resident Evil is really tied to him; it has gone so far past his original contributions in the last 20 years. None of this is to say directorial vision isn’t important in games, because it obviously is, but it is very, very rare to find directors who aren’t seen as expendable by both publishers and fans. You have your Kojimas, and I’d argue Yoko Taro is up there too, but even the greatest of directors outside of them could be replaced to pretty minimal fanfare, as history has shown us.
I think games from people’s childhood is an easy sell. Technology ages sometimes for the worst so improvements can be made. So it doesn’t really feel like a remake but a revamp. Games can be fixed on a technical level to make them look and function better. Movie remakes unless it’s a completely different interpretation it feels like they’re cashing in on something that was fine. Like Disney remakes just feel like here’s the same thing but it’s live action now. It’s not a new approach or interpretation.
I think there is an extent to which other components of movies are seen as more sacred than in games. For example, the severed head of the android Ash in the original Alien looks really janky by today’s standards, you could 100% make a better version today. And yet, the ingenuity behind getting it to work at all in the 70’s and that original performance are worth a lot more than replacing that scene with more advanced props or VFX to most people.
this, but to build on it a film's story should be updated for the culture of the day in order to justify its existence, else its often no more ambitious than any status quo cash grab. The cultural context and trends of today are not the same as in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. Film remakes ought to be accepted as adaptations, but they're often not. The audiences are also different. There's a higher proportion of artistic elitism in film circles than in game circles. Whether that disparity is a problem or not is up to personal opinion.
I think the biggest point that was missed in this video is the idea of “Changing the original”. With a video game the way they age really affects the enjoyment levels of most consumers. Taking Persona 3 as an example, it has aged the worst out of the original Persona 3,4,5 styled games. You had zero control over party members, there were lots of events and story moments which just didn’t hit right and it was locked on the Ps2 with its original and FES OR you could play its PsP version which was essentially a different game altogether with how the gameplay changed. Compare that now with Persona 3 Reload which keeps all aspects of the game which were popularly enjoyed and updates everything else to the standard of the most recent Persona 5 Royal. Really the only controversies the game had were 1. The remixes of some of the songs not sounding the same (that’s the nature of a remix it won’t be for everyone and it was impossible to get the original songs remade EXACTLY as they were), 2. The lack of FEMC from Persona 3 Portable (realistically this would’ve near doubled production time and budget and as such Persona 3 Portable was simply remastered / ported onto modern consoles to allow for people to experience that story), and 3. Not including FES as apart of the game which is already being continued as a DLC which is essentially what FES was in the first place. So ultimately nothing about the original P3 or P3 FES has been fully lost that was beloved about the originals. As such we now have the definitive edition for new people to enjoy and the original loses its need to attract newer players, it’s essentially just a relic of its time which is the point of remaking it. IN COMPARISON, when you make a film remake the emphasis on what’s changed is a lot greater. Characters will look and sound different, they won’t act the same, scenes and tones will have shifted, etc. It’s very hard to make a remaster of a film in the way a remake does for a video game. The approach is often just fundamentally different from a video game remake. With a video game the point of a remake is due to how inaccessible the original now is, and how it can be improved upon to increase its audience and bring it forward to today. Often times with film remakes the idea is to “fix” or flat out redo the idea which often times loses what made the original beloved in the first place. Let’s use Evil Dead as an example, one of the only times a remake has been more popular than its original (don’t get me wrong I love the original too, but the remake is just awesome). The main complaints around the original Evil Dead were its comedy and campiness not capturing the dread and danger of the situation, so what did the remake do? It kept the formula of the original film, whilst elevating the danger and dread of the situation. It keeps aspects of the original while focusing on what made it beloved and attempting to better focus on them and enhance them. It puts more of an emphasis on the characters and WHY everything is happening and how it affects them rather than just the absurdity of it all which helps to elevate the feelings around said characters. A bad example of a film remake would be something like Poltergeist, which takes the idea of the original but then chooses to ignore everything that made it popular and what was criticized about it and simply tries to redo the original. In the process it lost what worked with the original 82 film and is just a soulless husk of a film trying to be better than its original. When looking at what needs to change, often times the story of a game won’t be replaced, it’ll instead be enhanced. It’s like having a cheeseburger, but then adding a drink and a side of fries, it doesn’t take away what worked before hand but gives you more to enjoy. Movie remakes instead try too often to replace a Cheeseburger with a turkey burger, sure it has the same name (burger) and it might be good, but it’s not what you wanted per se. There is too much of an emphasis on changing everything and then retrying the concept of the story rather than embracing the original story and vision and enhancing it by fixing what didn’t work.
In fairness to myself, the very first section of this video is about the differential between story and gameplay, and how video games are seen as having an obligation to keep up with evolving technological and quality of life advancements in ways films aren’t
I will also say that in my time with the Persona community I have also seen a fair number of voices who feel like P3 reload loses some of its personal identity, taking on too much of P5’s stylistic inclinations. I’ve also seen complaints about art design, especially with more lit up areas like the dorms which take on a totally different feel from the original. When you engage with the community online there are still a ton of voices that encourage new players to play older versions as opposed to Reload; a minority I imagine as Reload was received well overall, but present nonetheless
Games aren't as respected as art forms as much as film. Old movies are classics while old games are "crusty, boring, outdated." This is honestly nonsense, and i dont know why so many people believe this about games. Most games that are remade already hold up and dont need them, while games that genuinely need remakes don't get one because it won't make money. Bubsy 3d will never get a remake because nobody cares compared to hearing "resident evil 4".
I think there are a lot of very successful movie remakes and they tend to follow the same pattern as video games. Lets take some examples. Oceans 11 Dune The Thing Battlestar Galactica All are makes of older movies that were either fun popcorn flicks or movies were the potential was there but not reached. Oceans 11 is a fun popcorn flick starring the Rat Pack. It isn't exactly aiming to be high art but a fun heist movie starring likeable, affable stars. And the remake is also that. Just updated for modern day times with modern day technology and issues. Dune was aiming high but fell apart due to but and tech limitations at the time but also studio ideas about movie length at the time. 3 hour popcorn flick epics were not the style of the 80s. More than 2 hours seemed to be pushing it in exec minds of the time. The potential was there much like the potential of some early 3d games that get remade. If we just had the analog controller of the time and some more detailed graphics then it would have been better. Lets do just that! Resident Evil on the Gamecube. I love the original RE but I don't think it is nearly as accessible for someone who didn't grow up then as the remake is. Battlestar Galactica was a fun 1970s Lost in Space wanna be. But the gritty 2004 remake took the framework and characters and turned it isn't something new that had its own messages and themes to explore in the same framework. You can see lots of episode concepts and pacing in the first two seasons are heavily inspired by the original TV show run. I think The Thing is also much the same way. A cheap creature feature from the 50s reimagined by a modern master of his craft. I think a lot of video game remakes fall into these camps as well outside of stuff like Demon's Souls where it would be trapped on the PS3 forever if not updated/ported. But now that a lot of 10 year old games don't really look or play that much different than games today. I don't think there is quite the clamoring for remakes that there once were. I would also like to call out Halo 1 remastered as truly a fresh coat of paint. You can even toggle between original and new graphics with the flick of a button on the fly during the game. This doesn't add much to the discussion around remakes but I think it is a real cool gimmick that shows just how far graphics had come. Metal Gear Solid Delta should consider this as well.
Gamers these days dont care about art or artistic value/integrity. They treat games as disposable toys. Once a new shiny toy comes out they throw the old one away as its now "outdated", "unplayable", etc. Another sign of this is the significance of modding and altering the product to fit your needs/wants, as well as the role of dlc, options/settings, microtransacrions, cosmetics, etc. Its all about what YOU want, right here and now, rather than what the developers wanted or intended. Ive found gamers to be more narcisistic and toxic in these ways, especially the newer younger ones. I connect better with movie enthusiastes as at least they typically care more for the art form and arent as bad with some of these practices. For instance, nobody (at least not yet) is willing to pay for alternate endings or extended cuts like gamers are willing to pay for extra/altered content in a game. They dont throw out a classic just because a new and shiny version comes out. They dont complain about "outdated" things like black and white being used for artistic purposes, while gamers complain about things like fixed camera perspectives being used for artistic purposes.
Another fascination with modern gamers is the idea of "nostalgia". This is something you see time and time again being brought up in gaming conversations. Any time someone talks about an original or older game being great, or that it is better than the newer version, someone will always come up saying "you are just blinded by nostalgia". As if there's no argument to be made, the new one is just inherently better and the only way someone can think otherwise is if they are blinded by nostalgia. It gets so tiring dealing with these kind of conversations and it's just something you hardly ever deal with when talking about movies. If someone talks about a newer version of a classic movie and how the older one was better, nobody is going to attack you or try to shut the conversation down by saying you are nostalgic. Many of these people don't even know what nostalgia is or how it operates. They just parrot it.
Game remakes are also hated across the board, there are just many more people watching movies than playing games, so the minority that likes remakes is a lot more obvious in games as the vocal majority isn't as loud
Games are interactive and movies are not, graphics and tech have gotten better but cameras just film real life. Old movies with poor CGI were covered up by poor video quality and tube TVs, but old movies with good cgi and/or practical effects will hold up forever. Remaking a game feels like an effort to bring back dying media. Movie remakes always feel like cash grabs cause I could juse watch the old movie instead, it's not always that easy with games
Me seeing a game remake which I’ve played the original and HD update to death: “Not for Me!!!”-Richard B Riddick (pitch Black) A remake of something I’ve never played before: “I am groot”- Groot
One aspect I am not seeing addressed is that a movie is something you absorb and maybe reminisce about and/or discuss later. Unless you get into a very active fandom, they aren't really interactive. A game is an experience you participate in, and if done well, a remake can be like taking an old hike that you enjoyed immensely and enjoying the changes in the scenery. You get the hike either way, but the changes might require you to use a different hiking strategy or bring new sights that weren't there before. A movie, you are still sitting there absorbing it, no participation (barring fandom).
That is largely the whole point of the first section of my video. Movies have their obligation to story above all else, sometimes effects and visuals play into it. But games as an interactive experience that is expected to keep up with modern gaming conventions to stay relevant
I think one thing would mostly be because old games usually look less than favorable by todays standards where old movies look fine while they may look dated they were way better looking than old games. Usually remakes of movies are just lazy and no where as good as the original. That said I dont want anything I loved being remade today,maybe in a few years when they get over the "for a modern audience" thing and just faithfully remake the games. Thats why im more for just the remaster side,just make it look better maybe fix some janky controls but leave the story and characters alone
There are hardly any reasons for movies to get remakes as most of the old ones are on film which can be rescanned at higher resolution than what they were originally released at. If the movies was stuck at 480i or 240p we would be more likely to get remakes of said movies as they would look bad and only a few people would watch them. Though it might be more common in the future as most modern movies are digital and will not age as gracefully as old analog movies, especially those with a lot of 3D effect or CGI.
The thing about remakes for video games is that generally, you will have the same creators come back and at least be producers if not full developers of the project meaning it still has the same soul, where as movies typically dojt involve the original creators because in fil the og creators have no need to remake what they think is perfect so youll have a new team coke in and try to make somthing new while appealing to old fans and it almost never works. The only way a "remake" in a film can work is if you reboot it or you make a sequel like a bladerunner, but those sometimes have mixed results.
4:35, this exact same sentiment can be applied to games as well. There are many remakes that completely cannibalise the original game and make it almost impossible to play the original on modern hardware. (Its funny u bring up the demon souls remake, id recommend watching ratatoskr's video, i dont agree with every point he makes but its gets the general idea across very well) But most people that buy the remakes havnt played the originals, so why would they care if the art direction, music, or tone or even core gameplay mechanics have been changed ? The reason why there isnt much outcry for remakes in games is the same reason why isnt much outcry for sequals in games. Games are interactive and iterative, when people like a game for its gameplay they want to see it improved or kept exactly the same but with few new additions, new levels new enemies and what not. Movies are notorious for bad sequals, becasue a movie focus is on the story, and u cant just keep the story the same but and few new additions like with games. Gamers are now learning to appreciate games as art rather than just a vehicle for gameplay enjoyment, similar to how books and movies appreciate their works, which is why the sentiment is slowly changing Edit: just incase youre wondering, a good remake to me is like RE4 remake, its good because its actully a remake, from the ground up completely different from the original, but the original is also just as popular and also well preserved, both the remake and original can played on modren hardware, both have their own unique strengths that doesnt invalidate the other
I wouldn't say I love videogame remakes at all..... tbh, I hate 94% of all remakes, take the Demon's Souls remake... the tone is lost in translation as it sullies the enviromental storytelling and art direction and over atmosphere..
@@PuntilaserTake Latria, The Land of The Ivory Queen... in the original PS3 game the tone set is totally undone in the PS5 remake: 1# The Sound design and lighting differences: The sound design in the PS3 version recognises the isolation of the setting, it's quite but oppersively so.. it's located high in the mountains and is remote and far removed, like many locations in Demons Souls the is a lack of weather, everything takes place at night or morning... like the world is caught in between and in limbo. The first sound heard is the swarming of insects; the sound of a plague of flies feasting one the dead and living alike. There is a faint cry far below and in the distance is heard the bells of the Warden's patrolling on multiple levels, it rings out and the placement of the sound is lost in open air.. until it suddenly grows faster and faster, and you have to rush back through the narrow corridors in low visiblity or stand and fight leaving you inable to evade the warden's, the panic will often lead players to run to their deaths. Whilst in the PS5 remake, there is the loud flash of thunder illuminates the setting and the rain storms down drowning out the subtle noises, overall everything is much louder and there is now "Return To Slumber" playing in the background, a strange enough choice from a lore perspective, but it's offsets the tone, it's relaxing, it's pleasant it's a lullaby song by The Maiden In Black to calm The Old One. The sounds of the plague and of the bells ringing out in open-air is lost in the noise. the original games frieghtening and decaying tone is further downgraded by the clean and bright art direction.. Ultimately, the sound design and overly bright lighting ruins the tone, the tension, and the overall gameplay expirence... this is true of every level for diffirent reasons, don't get me started on the other levels, Latria is not even the most insulting to the original in my mind.
@Passageofsky please stop putting "..." everywhere. I dont know why people do it, but it just makes your comment annoying to read. Agree with you on the demon souls remake though. The changes it made blatantly contradict the world-building and subtext of the original, and instead give a much more "generic dark fantasy" aesthetic.
@@ahumanbeingfromtheearth1502 Fair enough, I over use that a lot now I look at it again. I tried to fix it and cut down on it by using full stops or comas, it looks easier to read
I honestly dont like both it overall just shows how creatively bankrupt entertainment is becoming, i adore games like FF7 and RE4 but these games were the product of their time, you cant recreate the same feeling and impact that you did 20+ years ago just because of new shining graphics, and the disappointing sales of FF7R proves that, this generation of games is probably one of the worst and Remakes are a big part of that, if these efforts were spent creating something new and original.
While I understand your point, I’m not sure sales are the best indicator of proof here. Final Fantasy has been struggling for a while, with FF16 also lagging behind Square Enix’s admittedly overblown estimates. You compare that to RE where RE2 remake sits at a pretty massive 14 million copies sold and RE4 has already sold 7 million, more than RE2 had in the same time frame, and it does tell a different story. RE2 remake has sold more than RE7, an original and well regarded game that came out two years earlier
@@sosaysjay Iam mostly talking about impact rather than sales, back in the day you can have a stupid mini game and label it with FF7 logo and it would still sell like hot cakes because thats how much of an impact FF7 had on the industry, same thing with RE4 that game was milked to death aswell and it changed not only the gaming landscape but how future games in the series would play out. Ofcourse RE2 and RE4 remakes are fantastic games but none of them really had that much of an impact on the industry or brought anything new to table like their original counter part. In the worst case scenario people will detest the remakes for unnecessary changes like how FF7R changed important moments of the original story and tries to shoehorn some multiverse BS that no one asked for and thats a very big reason why old fans didnt buy rebirth while newer fans have no idea what is going on.
Another thing you didn't really mention that I think you could've covered is that new IPs especially in the AAA space doesn't sell well as much as they used to now, there's been newer ips like Evil West, Callisto Protocal, Immortals of Aveum, Forspoken, and even Hi Fi Rush to some degree among others and some many of these games I enjoyed, but they didn't really make much of a big splash in Hi Fi Rush's case it almost killed the studio in spite of how successful it seemingly was. Compare that to a remake and every goes ballastic over them, especially back when RE2 Remake came out which for the life of me I never understood, since that was the game that made me turn heel on game remakes, I sort of don't care anymore but it just seems like if you can't make a big budget new idea anymore since there are those sick of remakes but then don't even buy new ips that come out. Look at Son and Bone, for more proof of what I'm talking about, people are demanding a new Resistance and Killzone game but here is a Playstation exclusive FPS for the first time in forever and yet NO ONE is talking about it. Really goes to show how much gaming when it comes to the AAA space is driven by nostalgia a lot now. But hey, I enjoy the new stuff along with the old.
Because game remakes are updated with modern technology & visuals while TV/movie remakes are updated with whichever social/political issues are popular at that point in time.
I actually don't love game remakes. In fact, I hate them and wish they would stop being made entirely. I've never once played a remake and liked it. For me, if I want to play an old game, I 100% want the experience that the original gave me, or there's exactly no reason to play it instead of a new game. To me, a remake is pointless for this reason. It's not the same experience so there's no point. Just make a new game
I usually watch Jay's vids with great interest. Howev here it is too watery and abstract. for example it would be interesting to hear why TLOU1 is a worthwhile remake at least in a couple of sentences what are the differences between MGS5 and ∆ etc. Surface level boring😢
You bet your ass we do hate remakes. The thing is, we are in a honeymoon period of the Mummy remake long before the current movie era of reboot everything. We hate all remakes, but with games, we just don’t know it yet.
I dont think remaking old games with updated mechanica is gonna get a lot of hate in the future. Why play an old game with old bugs when there is a defenitive version out there to play
@@quattro8435 That is not the problem. New remakes can be good too, and also "we hate all remakes" is a generalization from me. The point is, at some point, big studios will decline any kind of risky creativity, with too much money on the line. So we will just get endless stream of re-iteration, as we do in the movie industry nowadays. The game will be good, but surely not for the people who have played them too much already. Great example is the new Alien movie. It is well received, it seems to have more success than Wolverine+Deadpool... but it is basically just reinroduction of the first movie. They don’t work with it to make something new, like Aliens did, or A3 or A4 or AvP or Prometheus did too..... If you are new to the franchise, you will love it. If not, maybe you’ll love it too, this time. I enjoyed the movie, but I hate it more than the two that came before. The last 2 movies (Prometheus was meh with great visuals, the other one was just sad) were badly received (cus they weren’t done that well) and so for that reason they gave up on creativity and just redid the first one, bravo. It is a good movie, but I HATE it. We will see more of this same exact movie in future. And it will make a lot more money in future, because new generation will watch it, if not us. Repetition hits hard in movies and it’s coming for games. And they will get old, because we will see reintroduction of the same thing again and again.
@@BigBoy-ok3eg Bruh, you can’t just say something is dumb without explaining why. That makes you sound dumb. Also I like Prometheus, I like the atmosphere and visuals, the story is underwhelming. But guess sometimes it is hard to read. Or I don’t know, accept there are pros and cons rather than saying good and bad and more importantly, that it is my opinion and you can have a different one. What a concept.
